Fast food CEO: Minimum wage hikes closing locations

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • stchas

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Feb 24, 2011
    268
    18
    Terrible Haute
    I'm surprised by the number of people who don't believe that raising the minimum wage won't cost people their jobs and/or raise prices. I'm a District Manager for a casual dining chain and the company has brainstormed the best places to cut employee hours and jobs to offset any increase. Also I'd bet a couple of bucks we weren't the only company to do so. They're in business to turn a profit and will do what's best (for them) to maximize that profit.
     

    PRasko

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 3, 2013
    1,244
    113
    Amish country
    8koXXEt.jpg


    Think I've posted this before :):
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    37,791
    113
    .
    I'm still up for the experiment, have california raise the minimum to $20 per hour for 5 years and then see what happens.
     

    Lebowski

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jun 6, 2013
    2,724
    63
    Between corn and soybean fields.
    cigs already cost 14.50 in NY


    Yikes. Minimum wage in NY is $8/hr... I'd have to give up smoking! (Although I have cut back to about 1/4th pack a day now... after quiting for two months... where before I smoked a pack a day.... baby steps to quitting.)


    Then again, places like NY is so expensive to live that a lot of young people live at home with their parents anyway. A Rising Share of Young Adults Live in Their Parents? Home | Pew Research Center?s Social & Demographic Trends Project

    Luckily for me, I had a (minimum wage) job at as a teenager in HS, and literally on my 18th birthday was able to afford to move out and afford a crappy shotgun house downtown. Even today, at 26, my rent is laughably cheap... and I have a house with a yard and a view of the Ohio river... granted it's not the 'best' part of town, but in my small town even the 'bad part' is 'good' when compared to a lot of other places. I can deal with the occasional shouting I hear outside and keep an eye on the sketchy people on the corner, across the street and on the other corner. :P
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    I pay general laborers for general labor. It isn't even a $10 an hour job, "employee x, take that out of the box screw the legs on and put it there!" I for one will have to do the same job with fewer employees, because $7.25 to $10.10 is more to an employer than just $2.85 more per hour. That increase affects my workers comp insurance, my payroll taxes, everything. Minimum wage jobs are ENTRY level, if you work for anyone and are still making minimum wage after a few years, maybe it's YOU, not your employer that needs to adjust something?
     

    Archbishop

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    2,510
    38
    INDY
    It boils down to the boss will pay you an amount that it equal to or less than the value that you return to the company. Anything more, and he is losing money to keep you around.
    If the value that you bring to the company is $10 an hour on average than he pays you $8.50 an hour and pockets the 1.50 as profit. (I know, there's overhead, taxes, insurance etc. but we're keeping it simple.) So while you the employee makes a profit of $8.50 the boss only makes a profit of $1.50 an hour and he or she has taken all the risks. I know one could argue he doesn't do any of that $10 an hour labor, but he or she has done a lot create the opportunity for you to work and as mentioned has taken all the risks.
    When you demand to make $11 an hour for the same work the boss realizes that even after doing the work to create your job opportunity he is actually going to lose $1 an hour it quickly adds up. Why would the boss do this?
    At the end of the day, it's a "for profit business" not a feel good charity.
    I will add one further note. If you really believe that the value that you bring to your boss is worth more than he's paying then leave and go work for another boss that values your work more. In general there are no restriction to your seeking employment else where.
     

    Bunnykid68

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Mar 2, 2010
    23,515
    83
    Cave of Caerbannog
    It boils down to the boss will pay you an amount that it equal to or less than the value that you return to the company. Anything more, and he is losing money to keep you around.
    If the value that you bring to the company is $10 an hour on average than he pays you $8.50 an hour and pockets the 1.50 as profit. (I know, there's overhead, taxes, insurance etc. but we're keeping it simple.) So while you the employee makes a profit of $8.50 the boss only makes a profit of $1.50 an hour and he or she has taken all the risks. I know one could argue he doesn't do any of that $10 an hour labor, but he or she has done a lot create the opportunity for you to work and as mentioned has taken all the risks.
    When you demand to make $11 an hour for the same work the boss realizes that even after doing the work to create your job opportunity he is actually going to lose $1 an hour it quickly adds up. Why would the boss do this?
    At the end of the day, it's a "for profit business" not a feel good charity.
    I will add one further note. If you really believe that the value that you bring to your boss is worth more than he's paying then leave and go work for another boss that values your work more. In general there are no restriction to your seeking employment else where.

    Nailed it
     

    ModernGunner

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 29, 2010
    4,749
    63
    NWI
    "When the minimum wage increases, there are two things you can do," he said. "One is you can reduce the amount of labor that you use or you can increase your prices."
    They (whoever made that quote in the article) forgot a couple.

    * Lower the profit margin. This includes the salary(ies) paid to the 'top brass'.

    Wonder if anyone noticed that the AVERAGE CEO salary (which would specifically INCLUDE Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Enterprises, PARENT company of Carls, Jr. & Hardee's) has just passed $10 million per year? The whole, "If minimum wage goes up we'll go broke" whining is simply :bs:

    IF the heads of the companies shoved less money in their own pockets (for Puzder, let's say to $5 million), there would be more $$$ to pay those higher hourly wages (in this case alone $5 million / year more) to pay those 'exhorbitant' (LMAO!) minimum wage increases, WITHOUT raising prices one nickel OR cutting employees or employee hours.

    As noted before, if minimum wage were equivalent (min. wage $$ vs. cost of living) to what it was in, say 1974, minimum wage would currently be right at $15 / hr. That would mean (or meant) that the hourly minimum wage would've have only needed to rise $.18 / hr (18 cents) per year in the last 4 decades.

    18 cents per hour wasn't a 'big raise' in 1974, and even less so in 2014. WHY didn't minimum wage go up that measly $.18 / hr. per year over the last 40 years? Pretty simple. The owners of those companies chose to keep that additional income for themselves rather than include those that actually do the work. That's simply called 'greed'.

    Of COURSE, the heads of those companies will respond with, "Why should *I* cut MY profit?!? *I* want every friggin' nickel I can get, who cares about the employees, that's 'their' problem!"

    So, WHY should the employees, that have been denied a measly $.18 / hr. raise AND from which the company heads / owners have benefited for more than 4 decades, 'care' about those owners? WHY should those employees care about Puzder?
    What, Puzder can't live off of $5 million / yr.? Poor sod... :rofl:

    AT one point in time, a boss who couldn't pay his employees a 'fair wage' was looked down on. Looked like a 'slum-lord' employer. Then, in the last few decades, that 'attitude' reversed to the 'Scrooge' mentality.

    I HOPE the minimum wage goes to $15 / hr., where it should be relative to the last 4 decades. The owners HAVE benefited from that negligence for 40 years by skimming off that $.18 / hr. and sticking it in their own pockets.

    Don't like it (owners)? Close, or do all the work yourself. Of course, IF ya close, then where's YOUR $$$ coming from? Gonna go work for some other 'slum-lord' employer for minimum wage? Good! :lmfao:

    No worries, there'll be a NEW business open, doing the SAME thing you do, the very next day, who'll figure out they CAN pay their employees even $15 / hr. minimum wage AND still be competitive AND still make a profit. :laugh:
     

    Arthur Dent

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 21, 2010
    1,546
    38
    They (whoever made that quote in the article) forgot a couple.

    * Lower the profit margin. This includes the salary(ies) paid to the 'top brass'.

    Wonder if anyone noticed that the AVERAGE CEO salary (which would specifically INCLUDE Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Enterprises, PARENT company of Carls, Jr. & Hardee's) has just passed $10 million per year? The whole, "If minimum wage goes up we'll go broke" whining is simply :bs:

    IF the heads of the companies shoved less money in their own pockets (for Puzder, let's say to $5 million), there would be more $$$ to pay those higher hourly wages (in this case alone $5 million / year more) to pay those 'exhorbitant' (LMAO!) minimum wage increases, WITHOUT raising prices one nickel OR cutting employees or employee hours.

    As noted before, if minimum wage were equivalent (min. wage $$ vs. cost of living) to what it was in, say 1974, minimum wage would currently be right at $15 / hr. That would mean (or meant) that the hourly minimum wage would've have only needed to rise $.18 / hr (18 cents) per year in the last 4 decades.

    18 cents per hour wasn't a 'big raise' in 1974, and even less so in 2014. WHY didn't minimum wage go up that measly $.18 / hr. per year over the last 40 years? Pretty simple. The owners of those companies chose to keep that additional income for themselves rather than include those that actually do the work. That's simply called 'greed'.

    Of COURSE, the heads of those companies will respond with, "Why should *I* cut MY profit?!? *I* want every friggin' nickel I can get, who cares about the employees, that's 'their' problem!"

    So, WHY should the employees, that have been denied a measly $.18 / hr. raise AND from which the company heads / owners have benefited for more than 4 decades, 'care' about those owners? WHY should those employees care about Puzder?
    What, Puzder can't live off of $5 million / yr.? Poor sod... :rofl:

    AT one point in time, a boss who couldn't pay his employees a 'fair wage' was looked down on. Looked like a 'slum-lord' employer. Then, in the last few decades, that 'attitude' reversed to the 'Scrooge' mentality.

    I HOPE the minimum wage goes to $15 / hr., where it should be relative to the last 4 decades. The owners HAVE benefited from that negligence for 40 years by skimming off that $.18 / hr. and sticking it in their own pockets.

    Don't like it (owners)? Close, or do all the work yourself. Of course, IF ya close, then where's YOUR $$$ coming from? Gonna go work for some other 'slum-lord' employer for minimum wage? Good! :lmfao:

    No worries, there'll be a NEW business open, doing the SAME thing you do, the very next day, who'll figure out they CAN pay their employees even $15 / hr. minimum wage AND still be competitive AND still make a profit. :laugh:

    Where I work the original CEO set out to prove that it is possible to pay people the union wages, make a quality product AND be profitable. He did it. Profit sharing was done every quarter, and it wasn't chump change. Benefits for everyone, salary and hourly, were equal. But there was still a huge profit being made. In his later years he got greedy. Decided he no longer needed the US workers and began closing the US plants and opening up plants in Mexico, Brazil, India, Thailand, China, Poland. All for cheaper labor and "higher" profits. The higher profits never materialized. He even saw his own pay shrink to the point that the bulk of it was his guaranteed yearly bonus, which in the proxy statements literally said it was for "starting the company." The overseas plants are such a capital drain that the past several years there is actually a good profit solely from the only remaining US plant. Which happens to be union. Everywhere else around the world the plants are just money pits. Despite having the newest and best equipment.

    The original CEO saw his income shrink from $20 million (one year it was over $90 million) down to $5 million, $3.9 million was his guaranteed bonus. He screwed the US worker and screwed himself at the same time.
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    They (whoever made that quote in the article) forgot a couple.

    * Lower the profit margin. This includes the salary(ies) paid to the 'top brass'.

    Wonder if anyone noticed that the AVERAGE CEO salary (which would specifically INCLUDE Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Enterprises, PARENT company of Carls, Jr. & Hardee's) has just passed $10 million per year? The whole, "If minimum wage goes up we'll go broke" whining is simply :bs:

    IF the heads of the companies shoved less money in their own pockets (for Puzder, let's say to $5 million), there would be more $$$ to pay those higher hourly wages (in this case alone $5 million / year more) to pay those 'exhorbitant' (LMAO!) minimum wage increases, WITHOUT raising prices one nickel OR cutting employees or employee hours.

    As noted before, if minimum wage were equivalent (min. wage $$ vs. cost of living) to what it was in, say 1974, minimum wage would currently be right at $15 / hr. That would mean (or meant) that the hourly minimum wage would've have only needed to rise $.18 / hr (18 cents) per year in the last 4 decades.

    18 cents per hour wasn't a 'big raise' in 1974, and even less so in 2014. WHY didn't minimum wage go up that measly $.18 / hr. per year over the last 40 years? Pretty simple. The owners of those companies chose to keep that additional income for themselves rather than include those that actually do the work. That's simply called 'greed'.

    Of COURSE, the heads of those companies will respond with, "Why should *I* cut MY profit?!? *I* want every friggin' nickel I can get, who cares about the employees, that's 'their' problem!"

    So, WHY should the employees, that have been denied a measly $.18 / hr. raise AND from which the company heads / owners have benefited for more than 4 decades, 'care' about those owners? WHY should those employees care about Puzder?
    What, Puzder can't live off of $5 million / yr.? Poor sod... :rofl:

    AT one point in time, a boss who couldn't pay his employees a 'fair wage' was looked down on. Looked like a 'slum-lord' employer. Then, in the last few decades, that 'attitude' reversed to the 'Scrooge' mentality.

    I HOPE the minimum wage goes to $15 / hr., where it should be relative to the last 4 decades. The owners HAVE benefited from that negligence for 40 years by skimming off that $.18 / hr. and sticking it in their own pockets.

    Don't like it (owners)? Close, or do all the work yourself. Of course, IF ya close, then where's YOUR $$$ coming from? Gonna go work for some other 'slum-lord' employer for minimum wage? Good! :lmfao:

    No worries, there'll be a NEW business open, doing the SAME thing you do, the very next day, who'll figure out they CAN pay their employees even $15 / hr. minimum wage AND still be competitive AND still make a profit. :laugh:
    As the owner/president/CEO/secretary...ad nauseum of my "corporation" anyone who tells me to lower my salary/profit margin/"bonus" can go fornicate themselves! That $10 or $8 am hour employee didn't risk a damned thing to work for me, he gets paid whether I make a profit or not. He works the hours allotted and gets his paycheck, some weeks and months I get nothing, yet he is still paid for the hours worked. Did HE start the business, no! Does he work 60 plus hours a week, no! Does he stress over payroll taxes, sales tax, personal property tax, no! Does he worry that there may not be money to put fuel in the trucks so he can do his job, no! His is to simply put in his hours, do his job, go home to his family, and pick up his paycheck on Friday. So far, My employees are under no illusion that the job they do is worth more than they are paid. When it comes that time, I will look for new ones. All this b..ching
    about "fair wage" or "living wage" is absurd, when employees put out the same risk as the owners, then they can talk about fair wages. Until then work for what you are paid, if it isn't enough, find someone who pays you more for the same thing!
     
    Top Bottom